Summary
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss an information charging two counts of larceny. It rejected challenges to the appointment and case-assignment practices for Connecticut state's attorneys, the constitutionality of a criminal investigation under General Statutes § 54-47, and the adequacy of warnings concerning the privilege against self-incrimination. The court also concluded that the bench warrant was supported by a judicial finding of probable cause and affidavits establishing a sufficient basis for the arrest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appointment of state's attorneys by Superior Court judges violates the constitutional separation of powers.
- Whether the state's attorney's method of assigning criminal cases deprives a defendant of an adversary due process hearing.
- Whether General Statutes § 54-47 and the defendant's testimony during the statutory inquiry violated his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination or right to counsel.
- Whether the defendant was arrested without probable cause because the bench warrant was signed by the clerk and lacked a sufficient judicial finding.
- Whether the affidavits supporting the bench warrant established probable cause.
Holdings
- The appointment of state's attorneys by Superior Court judges does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
- The method of assigning criminal cases did not provide a sufficient ground for dismissal because criminal matters remain subject to the court's control and the defendant showed neither a denial of due process nor an unfair practice in his case.
- The motion to dismiss was properly denied because the defendant testified voluntarily after receiving adequate warnings regarding his Fifth Amendment privilege, right to consult counsel, appointed counsel, and the use of his testimony.
- The bench warrant was valid because the court, not the clerk, found probable cause and ordered issuance; the clerk's signature merely memorialized the court's judicial act.
- The affidavits adequately established probable cause for the filing of the information and issuance of the bench warrant.
Key quotations
“Thus, the appointment of the personnel in a constitutional court, including, but not limited to, state's attorneys, public defenders, clerks of court, and messengers, is not within the power of the General Assembly.” (at 356)
“Defendant, nevertheless, waived his constitutional right not to testify.” (at 357)
“The clerk, in the exercise of a ministerial function, merely prepares and signs the oral order of the court to preserve accurately the acts of the court.” (at 358)
Factual background
The defendant was charged with two counts of larceny and challenged the constitutional validity of the state's attorney appointment and case-assignment procedures. He had testified during an investigation conducted under General Statutes § 54-47 after receiving warnings concerning his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. A bench warrant was issued pursuant to a court order finding probable cause, based on affidavits including one referring to the investigating referee's findings that the defendant received stolen property and knew or should have known it was stolen.
Procedural history
The defendant filed a three-part motion to dismiss in the Connecticut Superior Court. The court denied each part of the motion, concluding that the appointment and assignment procedures did not violate separation of powers or due process, that the defendant voluntarily testified after adequate warnings during the statutory inquiry, and that the bench warrant was supported by a judicial finding of probable cause.